This blog is obviously socio-political satire and you would have to be a complete moron to take it seriously

Monthly Archives: December 2011

Well it was Easter this weekend. I totally forgot about this until Sunday, when I went to do my grocery shopping for the week at my small town grocery store. I thought it was odd that the parking lot was totally empty and the lights were off. Then I noticed a sign on the front door that said: “Closed. Happy Easter.”

Happy Easter… unless you can’t get any any FOOD! WTF?

OK, first let me preface this rant by saying that I am a great admirer of Jesus Christ. I think he was a great guy, I have a lot of respect for his personal philosophy, and I seek to emulate his behavior in my own life.

However, even though Christ himself was awesome, the religion that mankind has built around his legacy is complete and utter garbage. This is so apparent in the holiday that Christians call Easter. I mean, the whole thing is just a slap in the face to everything Jesus stood for. They took his assassination and made it a fucking holiday, what a bad, tasteless joke. And the whole thing is CRUX to Christians, because this is the event that gets them off the hook for all their own sins, evil, and lies.

Once, a Christian asked me if I feared the “coming judgment” of Christ. I said no, because I am innocent. To which the Christian responded: “No one is innocent until they have been washed clean by the blood of Christ.”

So let me get this straight here: You bathe in the blood of your God’s dead son, and you think that this somehow makes you clean? That is some fucked up, twisted shit! I know Satanists whose ideas are a lot less perverted than that! But that is the way a lot of Christian people think. The crux of their philosophy is, basically: “Some guy died 2,000 years ago so that I can be an asshole today.” Here’s an idea: instead of performing these empty rituals in order to convince yourself that you are forgiven for your sins, why not try to actually BE A GOOD PERSON? In other words, WWJD?

I mean seriously, to take a good person like Jesus and basically make him responsible for all the world’s sin and lies is just sick. The whole thing is just a huge cop out for the bad behavior of humanity. I mean, how the Hell does it logically follow that Jesus’s execution absolves humanity of its sins? I mean, God’s son comes to visit Earth, the locals pop him off, and that somehow gets them OUT of trouble? If anything, I would think it would be the other way around! This “Jesus died for you” shit sounds to me like an excuse that was concocted by Jesus’s murderers. 1800 years ago, the Roman government handed down the proclamation:

“Jesus died for you.”

Don’t you mean that YOU KILLED JESUS FOR ME?

“No,” they say, “That had to happen. Wasn’t our choice.”

Bullshit. Jesus didn’t die for me, he lived for me, until a bunch of assholes had him killed. Don’t try to paint over the truth with his blood. The Bible is the Warren Report of the Roman Empire: Its the story of Jesus Christ as told by the same government that had him whacked.

And when they compiled the bible 200 years later, they took all the texts written about Jesus that supported their world view and made them canonical. Then they took all the texts that were incendiary, or revolutionary, or inconvenient to Roman rule, anything that would have opened peoples’ minds and made them harder to control, they took all that shit and burned it. And anyone that tried to keep copies of those documents for preservation, they executed. How Christian.

And what does the Christian bible imply about God? I’d say it implies that he was a pretty ineffective ruler. Have you ever read the Old Testament? Is it just me, or does God kind of come off as an asshole in that thing? He was always smiting people and handing down these ridiculous and impossible-to-follow rules… What a dick!

“Don’t have sex with more than one person at a time, don’t steal, don’t kill,” says God.

“But God,” you say, “Why did you give me a mind and body that wants to fuck everything that moves? Why did you put so much wealth in the hands of psychotic assholes who by their insensitive actions beg to be killed and robbed?”

“I didn’t do that,” says God, “Satan did.”

“Well who created Satan, asshole?”

Seriously, if Satan really does exist, I feel sorry for him. It seems to me as though he was a scapegoat for all of God’s mistakes. But then God had a son, and now Jesus fills the role of scapegoat. So basically, God gave Jesus Satan’s crappy job.

I would say that the Bible implies that God was a pretty shitty parent.

“Hey, Son, its about time you started to pick up your end of the family business. You see, I created this guy named Satan a while back. He got a little out of control and now things are all screwed up. Would you please kill him for me? Oh yeah, and I also created all these humans on a planet called Earth. Satan got up in there and corrupted them, and now the place is a total mess. Would you please go down there and clean all that shit up?”

Basically, I think that Christianity implies that children only exist to serve their parents. No wonder Christians are such shitty parents: look at the example they have to go by! They worship a God who killed his only son as some kind of sacrifice so that the world’s population can continue its orgy of killing, greed, and sin. What does Christianity imply about parenting? “Have a bunch of kids and put them to work on your farm.” What a bunch of self indulgent bullshit. This is what people mean when they say that Christians are “socially backwards”. They believe that youth exists to serve age, when really it should be the other way around.

Look at the holiday of Lent. You’re supposed to fast, and then Easter comes along and you can eat again! Why? Because after a short period of self-denial in tribute to him, Jesus is finally dead now, and we can all go back to being assholes again! Yay! The bosses’ kid is gone! Lets throw a party on the company dime!

The whole thing is just disgusting and hypocritical, and I… just can’t take it any more.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “Truth can stand on its own, but error needs the support of government to stand.” I think this sums up how I feel about marriage. True love can stand on its own, but a toxic relationship needs the support of government, financial, and religious institutions to stand.

I believe that a relationship should be between two or more people and perhaps God, if one were so inclined to believe in such things. Marriage destroys the sacred intimacy of a relationship by dragging the entire community into it, including family, organized religion, government, and even financial institutions. The next time I cavort with my lover, should I make her sign a contract indicating this is voluntary? Should I get written permission from her parents? Should I have a priest bless the prophylactic? Should I call my bank and tell them to add another person to my account?

I think marriage comes when a relationship is at the end of its rope: when someone needs a system of artificial religious, legal, social, and financial punishments to keep themselves entangled in a relationship. How many loveless marriages are allowed to stand, simply because neither party involved wants to settle for half? Or for the sake of children, society, and interior decoration? How many marriages were initiated to keep one person in the relationship happy, simply because that person has been brainwashed since childhood to think that slavery is romantic?

Every bit of legal savvy I have inside me resists the very idea of signing a non-negotiable contract, the terms of which were created a million years ago by some pedophilic religious homos for the purpose of enslaving people to a false standard of morality. All contracts should be negotiable, but this is rarely the case when it’s a lowly individual doing business with a giant organization. Too often we are told to take it or leave it, whether you are buying a car, renting an apartment, or getting married. We all sign the same marriage contract just like we all sign the same lease agreement. A contract between two lowly individuals should be negotiable, but marriage is a contract not just between two individuals, but also their religion and their government, and the inclusion of the last two severely restricts the bargaining power of any individual involved.

Some people think the government should acknowledge gay marriage. I say, shame on the government for acknowledging ANY marriage. It should be a religious institution and nothing more. The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Well then, what the fuck are the laws governing marriage? Giving tax breaks to married couples encourages religious behavior, thus discouraging irreligious behavior. Is this a free society or a religious oligarchy?

Community property might be fine for a man who makes his money shuffling papers at a desk job all day and wants to share the proceeds with his bought-and-paid-for Stepford Wife, but I dodged bullets for my money and don’t intend on sharing it with anyone. I wouldn’t be interested in a woman unless she had her own career and source of income anyway.

Lifetime commitments are only made by people who believe they can plan life. I maintain no such illusions. How silly will all the planning and money spent on cakes, flowers, dresses, and flying the whole family in look when, a few years down the line, the relationship ends, as most eventually do (extra probability points if your parents were divorced, like mine).

Who are the people who enforce the social institution of marriage? Some men are born with silver spoons in their mouths. Some men have plenty of time and resources to ‘play the field’ and ‘sow their wild oats’ during their youth. Some men have the clout to get their ‘pick of the litter’ when finally choosing a lifetime mate. Some men have a vested interest in stopping this game of socio-sexual musical chairs, even if you got the rickety chair that smells funny, or no chair at all.

How ironic that these men would be the captains of our society, enforcing their hypocritical morality upon us. Clearly, they have no understanding of the plight of the lower classes. Clearly, they do not know what it is like to have circumstances outside of one’s control choose their mate, just as circumstances outside of their control determined their job and fate. The rich assume that everyone else has had the same opportunities as they have had, because they have known nothing different.

And thus, these men, who have had their fill at the buffet of life and love, see fit to tell us what to eat and how much, judging us morally when we fail to live up to their false upper-class standards. So when they ask me why I haven’t tied the knot yet, I respond by asking them: How can the common man, whose decisions are made for him by his social ‘betters’, ever see fit to give up one of the few freedoms he has left: the freedom of association, the freedom of love? Why would anyone voluntarily agree to a proposition that seems so doomed to failure from the start? Why would anyone subject themselves to the terms of a non-negotiable contract, or even believe that such an agreement were necessary to have with someone they truly loved? If my boss gets to decide what I wear, what I do all day, how to divvy the proceeds of my labor, and even what I can and cannot put into my own body, why would I voluntarily give up any more freedom than that which has already been taken from me? Sorry sweetheart, I would symbolically surrender my freedom for the sake of our love, but alas there is no more freedom left to give.

This isn’t to say that I am against monogamous commitment for as long as it can be maintained. I’m also not against making a public announcement that two people are a couple. Even a wedding or other religious love ceremony is fine. Just keep the big men with guns out of it. A marriage contract is just a legal agreement that says if shit doesn’t work out, big men with guns come and take half your shit. There is no need to get big men with guns involved in your relationship. There’s no need for marriage to carry any legal aspect. That it does reflects the bias of our legal system. Why do people always feel the need to call the police into their personal affairs?

Or, suffice to say that I love strongly, but despise the idea of the church, the government, or money playing any kind of role in my relationship. Some things are supposed to be sacred.